Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: How The BPI Cherry Picks Its Averages To Pretend File Sharers Spend Less

from the add-back-the-missing-zeroes dept

We've written more than a few times about how multiple studies have shown time and time again that those who file share tend to spend more on buying music than those who don't. We've also talked about how the RIAA absolutely hates this fact and tries to dance around it at all costs. The latest move comes from RIAA sister organization, BPI (basically the UK RIAA), which has released a report (pdf) that they claim shows the opposite:

Appearing to debunk the common belief that filesharers
spend more on music than other consumers, Kantar
Worldpanel found that the average spend over a
12-month period for professed filesharers was lower
than the spend of consumers who only use legal
services. Kantar Worldpanel’s respondents diarise
their music purchases on an ongoing basis – there
are no estimates made of past purchasing, just an
accurate recording of spending patterns over time.
The panel data demonstrated that filesharers spent
an average of £26.64, compared with £33.43
by legal-only consumers, refuting the popular
argument that filesharers are the heaviest
spenders on music.

Of course, when you're talking about averages, it's not difficult to fudge the numbers a bit, and as TorrentFreak explains, that's exactly what BPI did. If you break out the specific numbers, you can tell a very different story:

- Legal only digital music buyers spend an average of £33.43 a year.- File-sharers, in total, spend an average of £26.64 a year.- File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of £0 a year.- File-sharers, the 55.2% who are buying, spend an average of £48.26 a year.

TorrentFreak confronted BPI on this, and they shot back that TorrentFreak's analysis was unfair:

"You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music 'consumers', and pretend they don’t exist or are not relevant. What happens if only 5% of file sharers are spending on music? Do we disregard everyone else who is freeloading?," a BPI spokesman said.

"It's not credible to discount the people who consume music, for free, illegally."

Fair enough... except that BPI's own numbers "wave away" all of the people who consume music legally for free, but don't spend anything on music. That is, there is a very large percentage of people who don't pay for music, but who also do not infringe. These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works. And if the BPI was being intellectually honest they would have to average all of those £0s into the average for "legal only" if they want to require all the £0s to be added into the infringing side as well. Basically, BPI is picking and choosing who it includes and excludes to make their argument look better. When it hand waves away all the zeroes on its side of the argument, while including all the ones on the other side of the argument, of course it'll make the numbers look better for its argument. However, if you're going to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have only two choices. Either you include all the people who don't buy on both sides or on neither. BPI didn't do that. They only chose the ones who don't buy on the file sharing side.

It's important to note that an analysis of the UK market by economist Will Page, back when he was with PRS for Music, noted that only 40% of the UK adult population actually bought any music at all. So you've got 60% non-buyers, some of whom are file sharing and some of whom are not. The BPI report chose to only include those who file shared, and ignore those who didn't. That's a clear methodological problem with their data. If they're going to include the non-buyers on the file sharing side, they need to include the non-buyers on the "legal" side, or they're simply lying with statistics.

Reader Comments

Mike..Love you man, but...

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

The problem is that too often people rely on information from "studies" that are interpreted and not on the actual properly formatted unbiased results. Those Studies are a case of people show the result they want.

Not an issue with the stats more with the people's desire to find the info and actually have someone make the opinion for them.

Re: Mike..Love you man, but...

Actually it is even worse, when your course is set to begin with and you ignore a significant element all together! Those studies will look pretty good if you look at the results and only if you study the premises, the errors will be revealed!

In this case BPI is not bringing a satisfactory description of methodology from Kantor, nor are they linking to the source (they seem to have forgotten the litterature list...) or how to get the source. In other words: It is scientifically undocumented claims!

At the same time they claim that 93% satisfaction with the music services is amazing. They probably want to give the perception that the music services are completely satisfying all the flexibility customers are craving, but since it is 93% of the customers at the services they are again completely missing the biggest part of the critics, those filesharing or going without! Apart from that, 93% satisfaction is not even that good. 6 out of 100 are unsatisfied, which is a sign of some problems.
Even further they site 2 numbers:

56% of respondents to a 2012 AudienceNet survey agreed that sites which distribute music illegally without paying artists should be blocked or closed down.
42% of filesharers agreed that the blocking of a
site would stop them acquiring infringing content.
Both without relevant links... Gogo, ISP-blocking!

Just saying. The report is utter amateur garbage from a scientific and traditional information point of view. I hope this kind of crap doesn't appeal to politicians...

Re: Re: Mike..Love you man, but...

but since it is 93% of the customers at the services they are again completely missing the biggest part of the critics, those filesharing or going without!

Yeah, this kind of statistical dishonesty always bugs the hell out of me. Techncally correct perhaps, but carefully completely not to the point you're trying to aim it at while sounding good.

Reminds me of a famous ad for catfood from when I was young. The tag line (after they ammended it following complaints if I recall correctly) was "8 out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their cats preferred it." The implicit is "cats love this stuff", but what it really means is "Most people we asked (and we probably only asked our on mailing list who buy the stuff anyway), said 'the mangy fleabag will eat anything that's not nailed down' and out of the rest 8 out of 10 were pretty sure the cat didn't run when fed the stuff." Yeah ringing endoresement.

The BPI left me out?

Re: The BPI left me out?

Same, kinda. I thought back, and in the past year, I have:

1) Not illegally downloaded/copied/obtained music
2) Not spent a single penny on music

Lately, if someone turns me onto something, I've checked it out on youtube/the artist's website and if I really like it, I've either legally downloaded it for free from the artist's site (if it's a small artist who does such things) or legally added it to one of my Pandora channels so it pops up here and there.

So, there ya go. Someone who exists, consumes legally and fairly often, and isn't counted because it's incontinent to think I exist.

And btw, as a side-note, I used to pirate music all the time since it was the easiest way to get what I wanted. Legal means became better/easier options for me, so I switched to them. I help spread small bands to hopefully become big bands one day and I listen to/see ads on Pandora, which pays for that service for me.

"That is, there is a very large percentage of people who don't pay for music, but who also do not infringe. These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works."

Say I never watch movies. I walk through Walmart and see one playing on the display TVs. Am I now a "movie-watcher" that neither purchases nor infringes? Those examples are pretty weak and really not related to the core concept being discussed. This is about people who are actively acquiring music and listening to it. Your examples are passively encountering music while going about their day - an incidental listener, if you will. To me, a completely different beast and not germane to the discussion.

I love this site and agree with pretty much all points but these examples ... you can do better.

Foolish dinosaur!

I can get free music and video in a number of ways. I can also do the same for video games. It doesn't require piracy and is nothing new. In fact, it has been the default mode for consuming media since recorded media and broadcasting were first invented.

I can watch movies for free without pirating quite simply. I can put up an antenna and be patient.

Re:

So an avid rock radio listener shouldn't be counted because he doesn't buy music? Even though he, legally mind you, records every new song that comes on? Or how about the half gig of music I acquired via the iTunes/Starbucks free song/album or various iTunes promo giveaways? How about free promo cds? I can go on and on as to the number of ways I acquired and consumed music without paying for it. Legally. It is a Major market, and not counting it is a problem.

Re:

Listening to the radio on a daily commute is a good example of this. Someone hears and enjoys all of the latest hit music and probably switches stations when they go to ads. I agree walking around a mall listening to music might be a bit of a stretch.

A better example for movies would be someone who goes over their friends house and watches a movie. They don't buy it but they consume it and are not doing anything illegal.

Re: Re:

Re:

"Say I never watch movies. I walk through Walmart and see one playing on the display TVs. Am I now a "movie-watcher" that neither purchases nor infringes? Those examples are pretty weak and really not related to the core concept being discussed. This is about people who are actively acquiring music and listening to it."

You have a good point about "walking around in stores," which was an overreach in the article. But radio-listening is a perfectly valid way to actively acquire valueless music. Radio-listeners just don't keep their music.

... and many file-sharers don't keep their files either.

Your assumption that file-sharing is the consumer equivalent of purchasing music has been shot down over and over again. They are apples and oranges, with completely separate decision-making trees. Stop looking at the options from a manufacturer's perspective and look at them through a customer's eyes.

Also, the music industry disagrees with you. They went to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940s to argue that FM radio broadcasts infringed on copyright. They used the same arguments they use today with regard to file-sharing and they lost.

Re: Re:

"But radio-listening is a perfectly valid way to actively acquire valueless music. Radio-listeners just don't keep their music."

The problem is, that's not what came to mind when I read it. What I thought of where examples of people who heard music in the elevator, saw something on a display TV, sat next to someone softly singing along to something. I just thought the argument could have been strengthened with better examples.

For example, my grandmother listens to the car radio but couldn't tell you what was playing when the trip is over. So long as it isn't that "gawd-awful metal" (anything produced after 1980) then she's fine but couldn't care less once out of the car. To count her as a participant in all this is really stretching.

I think the big difference, in my mind, is actively seeking out music vs passively encountering. If we're going to start trying to declare various demographics I think it needs to be limited to only include people who are actively engaged in one way or another.

Re:

Maybe the shopping example is a bad example, but you haven't addressed the radio - a very good example. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of people who listen to radio daily but never, ever buy a single song. With services ranging from FM and digital radio to Spotify, Rdio and Pandora to apps that let you listen to any radio station around the world on your iPhone to just having MTV on in the background while doing housework (yes, Americans, MTV does still play music in some areas!), people listen to music without ever buying - yet without breaking any law.

Leaving these people out of the discussion is fundamentally dishonest, which is the point being made. If the BPI wants to call people out for "waving away" those who pirate and don't pay, it's equally applicable to those who "wave away" those who never pay but also never pirate.

That's not even starting to go into things like bars and gyms where people may well listen to plenty of music while having paid for it via their bar tab/membership but without deliberately doing so - and also without ever buying copies of the songs afterwards. Are they passive listeners? Yes and no - for example, someone choosing one bar over another because they prefer the songs playing over the jukebox or because a friend of theirs DJs is choosing that venue for the music, but never buys any. There's many workplaces where people are exposed to music without deliberately having it, only they prefer to have it as opposed to not (an office with the radio or streaming playing in the background).

It's a difficult question the more you think about it, but pretending that it should be ignored is to ignore a large part of reality.

Re:

I posted this in response to something else, but...

In the past year, I have:

1) Not illegally downloaded/copied/obtained music
2) Not spent a single penny on music

Lately, if someone turns me onto something, I've checked it out on youtube/the artist's website and if I really like it, I've either legally downloaded it for free from the artist's site (if it's a small artist who does such things) or legally added it to one of my Pandora channels so it pops up here and there.

I am actively out obtaining/consuming music legally, and not paying a penny for it.

waaaait a minute

They're actually, by this study, acknowledging that file sharers do pay? They're not calling them thieves? They're just saying "Wah we make less money off them!" ? They're also saying that the gap is less than 50%, even by their incredibly slanted statistics?

Its like the cold war era when estimates of soviet military strength took no account of the roles played by cleaners cooks etc but when comparing to NATO forces used the total numbers that had any connection to military for the soviets and only active serving military excluding support roles for themselves to give the impression of imbalance.

its not the piracy.

its not piracy they HATE..
its installing enough POWER/resources and TIME to be able to give music to Everyone..
They dont get it, cant get it, and dont WANT TO PAY for it..

I was born and raised in a small town..
Can you GUESS what they had for music?? COUNTRY..JUST COUNTRY and a few extra..

the CORP likes to pigeon HOLE things so they KNOW what to send where..
NOW with the internet...you can SAMPLE Everything and decide what you like.
The CORPS business is to Make NEW singers rich..How can they do they if you buy OLD music..

SAME with radio..
What we dont like?? is easy.
COMMERCIALS..
REPETITIVE MUSIC..2-4 hour and REPEAT isnt a good thing.
Find a dedicated radio channel, ALL country/classic?/Classical..and they tend to be commercial based.

Re: its not the piracy.

"The CORPS business is to Make NEW singers rich"

This is false. Their business is to make THEMSELVES rich off the content provided by new artists. They want new disposable artists that are young and naive enough that they can manipulate them and then discard them for a new batch after they have used them for awhile before they become popular enough to have the bargaining power to effectively renegotiate a fairer deal for themselves.

Re:

Why is it not credible to discount a group that are not customers, and may not have money to be a market for your business?

The problem is that they DID include some people from this group. They included the ones that illegally downloaded music and didn't buy anything. They are just as much 'not customers' as the ones that didn't download anything and didn't buy anything.

Re:

Why is it not credible to discount a group that are not customers, and may not have money to be a market for your business?

If you want accuracy you count every person who consumed and than see how they consume it.

Did they use a free service?, was it from Youtube, Hulu, TV networks on the legal side or from the Pirate Bay?

They also didn't include how much of the total population actually consumes that crap, making worthless to see the real extend of things.

What this study seems to focus is in only the valuable few disregarding the rest of the population trying to prove a point and trying to convince everyone that the rules should apply to all and not be target at a specific group.

This is why they cherry pick their numbers, excluding groups.

Some times is useful for business decisions but it is nowhere correct to do the same about something the impacts everyone.

Re: Re:

"If you want accuracy you count every person who consumed and than see how they consume it."

There's also the question of why they consumed it like that in the first place. For example, was the album not yet released or not available in their country or preferred format? Was it a rare or unreleased remix, a track not on the final album or a live version not available anywhere else? It would be dishonest to automatically count those people as a "lost sale" because the reason they didn't pay for the music is because they literally couldn't.

That's the problem with reality. It can't be easily boiled down to "us vs. them", and any attempt to treat it as such will always end in more problems because the solutions don't address the real problems that exist.

I find today I listen to the radio a good bit. I can't stand commercials so I don't listen to the commercial stations. I'm lucky enough to be near a college sponsored training radio station. It doesn't have commercials and it doesn't have the every hour on the hour repeats.

It's an oldies station. So I never hear new music and have no desire to spend on something I haven't heard. If it comes down to commercial stations, I'd sooner turn it off than listen to all the commercials and replays.

That's not file sharing and it's not spending money on new songs I don't know exist. Were I filing sharing, I'd be exposed to new music I'd not heard before and might want it. Sure can't go to the local Mom and Pop record store in this one horse town the horse got up and left, as there isn't one.

So the RIAA and it's brethren can just piss off, moan and groan all they want, it won't change the dynamics of my personal lifestyle nor earn them any money under the present way they want to do business.

there is a very large percentage of people who don't pay for music, but who also do not infringe. These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works.

And these people are really not of any concern to either side in this matter; you can't figure into a study that you're not an active participant in. Music simply isn't a dominant presence in some people's lives. Their loss, but, different strokes, y'know?

As for the rest, this is definitely the most accurate study on this subject yet. So the correct way for TD to describe the results would be that some infringers buy more music than non-infringers.

Re:

Sure, this is a marvelous piece of study, in which the guys there took their time to count only the total consumers of something and saying it was 100% of the population when it is more like 20% or less that consume it, further by excluding the legal freeloaders and thieves that pay nothing but do it legally it also skew the numbers, if you are going to count the people who don't pay for it count everyone and then separate them into classes (i.e. illegal and legal freeloaders), why change the numbers to only report the "illegal" ones?

Is like the MAFIAA going to a reunion packing the room with sympathizers and doing a survey in the room to see if everybody agrees to something and then going out and saying the whole world agrees because in their survey of their room they found out that everyone agrees with what they are saying. OMG.

Re: Re:

I expected pushback from the anti-copyright crew at Techdirt, but what I'm seeing is some weak sauce in that department.

This is easily the most robust study ever done on this subject. And it shows what is obvious to anyone familiar with human nature: that there are many, many people that are greedy and choose to take music without ever paying a cent for it.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Just because they neither buy music nor pirate music doesn't mean music isn't a "dominant presence" in their lives.

There are, after all, still millions of people who listen to the ol' fashioned radio on a daily basis. They might not go out and purchase albums, and they might not pirate them, but it doesn't mean they don't love music and don't figure into the statistics.

Statistically speaking, your statistics are invalid.

I'm someone who pirates media.
I'm someone who doesn't pirate media.
I'm also someone who doesn't buy a lot of media.
I'm also someone who buys almost 100% of the media I pirate.
I'm also someone who buys a lot of media.

It all depends on how you slice your statistics

Consumer habits is a complicated thing, and it's important to model your studies after individual, or 'anecdotal' evidence, if you will, to get a clear picture of what goes on.

There are more than "pirates who buy music and pirates who don't." Most, (but clearly not all) pirates fall into the following categories:

Habitual downloaders: People who just enjoy downloading and sharing things. Often, they don't even consume the media they're downloading, and they may or may not purchase media they consume as well, because the media they share and the media they buy are of different sets and for different reasons. These people generally download HUGE amounts of media, but their actual consumption and buying varies. They tend to off-set averages of the typical consumer because they're not typical consumers, and their piracy isn't the same as consumption.

Try-before-you-buys: Savvy consumers who tend to download only what they intend to consume, and frequently buy what they enjoy. Criteria for actual purchases vary. Some only buy things from artists or companies they want to support. Some buy only media they really enjoy. Some wouldn't risk spending money on their consumption and would just consume less if they couldn't pirate it first. Few would be more likely to buy more than they do if piracy was less feasible.

Too-Poor-To-Buys: pirate because either they can't afford to buy the media they want to consume, or because they consider the cost of the media too high to justify buying it. None of these can be 'lost sales' because they all consider their options to be either to pirate, or to not consume. Some of them feel guilty about pirating and WOULD be consumers, if they could afford it, and some of them will go back and buy something later when they can.

Spite-The-Man: People who elect to pirate media because they dislike the publisher or the DRM. Most of the people in this category WOULD buy media if the publishers made an attempt to give them what they want, and almost always are collateral damage from the war on piracy.

Pretty much all of these categories are people who don't BUY media because they're under-served, and fixing that problem, and only that problem, would make a marked difference in their consumption, regardless of whether their piracy habits are tied to their consumption habits.

I've had a lot of experience with this. I was in the first category back in the day, and sharing was HUGE. WinMX, ED2K, DC++, SoulSeek, eMule, Napster, you name it. I spent a lot of time hanging out with other pirates. I downloaded a lot, I shared a lot, and ultimately most of the stuff I downloaded ended up going un-used. Music piled up but never got listened to. Movies and TV shows got downloaded but never watched, and eventually deleted. My altercations with other pirates taught me a lot of things, and exposed me to a whole ton of media, much of which I later became a consumer of, though not at the time.

In college, I was a too-poor-to-buy. In retrospect, I probably bought just as much back then as I do now. The biggest difference is that back then I consumed a lot more than I do now, so the ratio of piracy to purchase was much higher. College me was a huge dirty pirate despite spending equally as much as current good consumer me.

Nowadays I pirate very little. I buy movies I enjoy, and I subscribe to Pandora for my music needs. I buy games -- tons and tons of games -- legally, on Steam. My steam habit now is like my piracy habit as a kid. I buy stuff I don't even play. I spend hundreds of dollars a year on game titles, but spend all my at-home computer time looking at pictures of cats on the internet and playing minecraft. I'm a consumer because I'm not under-served anymore. If I have any regret now it's that I should pirate more than I do. There's a lot of media out there that I'd like to consume, but choose not to, and just can't be bothered to pirate. Sometimes I feel like I'm missing out... but then I'm reminded of how badly I've gotten burned pretty much any time I go against my better judgment and buy something laden with too much DRM, or from too abusive a publisher. I could be enjoying those things more if I just pirated it, but instead I just don't consume it, and get to deal with feeling like I'm missing out.

Re: Statistically speaking, your statistics are invalid.

Statistics don't always lie

"File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of £0 a year."

And there is no reason to believe they would, even if file-sharing were stopped tomorrow.

The BPI is actually misrepresenting the conclusion forced by the observation that most file-sharers spend more on music than other consumers. Even if only half of all file-sharers spend more than the average digital music buyer, file-sharing cannot be said to be taking business away from the sales stream.

Re: Statistics don't always lie

Sure they are and reinforced by only presenting the whole numbers of people who pay and excluding the people who legally don't pay but consume none the less, not to mention the actual number of people who actually consume against the total population.

Paid consumption may be what 20% of the whole population?
And they want laws for all the other 80%?

Using their math ...

A quick seearch of the internet for what percentage of the population participates in "less than legal" downloading,
I found estimates between 13% and 18%. Being generous, I'll double the high estimate ....

36% download
64% do not

Of the 36% that download, 44.8% of them [from article] (or 16.13% overall) pay nothing
if 60% overall don't pay [from article], and if only 16.13% are downloaders, then 43.87% of non-downloaders do not pay
so, only 56.13% of non-downloaders are paying customers

Now, to apply their own math to non-downloaders....

43.87% pay £0
56.13% pay £33.43
Therefore, non-downloaders must be spending an average £18.76 per year,
only 70% of what downloaders spend "on average"!

In my opinion the only fair way to calculate this is per capita, separately for file-sharers and non-file sharers. And if they did that, they would probably find that an average file-sharer spends anywhere from 2 to 4 times more on music (or culture in general) then a non-file-sharer.

You're dealing with people who consider playing a radio to horses to be a public performance.

You're talking about people who not so long ago wanted to claim that ringtones were public performances.

Hell, when they were compiling these statistics they probably inflated the figures just to make sure. "And add 7 more percent, because I would've gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those filthy ringtone pirates!"

Re:

So, you're too stupid to notice that both articles being commented on are talking about the same study? I honestly wish you people would apply basic reading skills before launching your whining tantrums and attacks.

Fair enough... except that BPI's own numbers "wave away" all of the people who consume music legally for free,

except those listening to the radio, or being exposed to music in shops ARE PAYING for that content. Listen to it or not you ALL STILL PAY.

music in shops is paid for by the shop, that you pay for in the extra cost of the products you buy from that shop.

Say you don't buy from them, YOU STILL PAY, because EVERYTHING you buy has the cost of advertising and promotion, and that cost is paid for by ALL CONSUMERS.

Radio stations are the same, they pay for the rights to broadcast that music, and you pay for it by the higher price for products. Products that are advertised by some media, such as radio.

For TV it's commercials, the TV company pays for the rights to show a movie, then places adds in between the movie to make the money back from their investment.

So even if you NEVER directly purchase music from a shop, and ONLY download pirated versions, and NEVER listen to any music from radio or TV, YOU STILL GET TO PAY FOR IT.

Like it or not, every time you purchase something, ANYTHING you are paying for the cost of promotion and for the cost of the creation, and distribution of all forms of copyrighted media.

the advertisements pay for the movie, song, and you pay for the advertising.

Do you think somehow promotion and advertising are pay for by some nice person? or do you think when you buy a big mac and fries some of that money goes to paying for MacDonalds advertising budget.

Or when hurt locker is on TV, do you think the TV companies does not pay the creators of that movie for the rights to broadcast, and do you believe that the adds during that movie are NOT payed for by the companies being advertised ??

Do you believe that those companies add NO COST to their products to cover the cost of advertising and promotion ?

Re:

Re:

"Listen to it or not you ALL STILL PAY."

Yet, you don't consider this to be a problem. People are paying for content they're not even consuming, yet if one of them receives it for free without paying a further toll you scream bloody murder. Typical shill, it's OK for industry to rip others off so long as they don't do the same in return.

"You still think you don't pay ??"

I think you're a trolling idiot incapable of understand even the points you've raised yourself, let alone the points actually being talked about by the others you're supposedly responding to.

Hell, it could be argued that everything you're saying (content can easily be paid for without direct payment being required, some people will still pay for valuable services even if free elsewhere, even those who pirate are already paying something) is in support of everything talked about here for many years. Then again, intelligence and internal consistency aren't your strong points. I'll stop now before you devolve completely into insanity again.

Determine the music licensing costs. Unless a song has an open license, you will have to pay a fee every time you want to play it on your radio station. If you are a commercial station, this can be fairly expensive

Re:

"EVERYONE WHO CONSUMES pays for the 'free' music and TV you watch."

No they don't. Your logic, as ever, is faulty.

In your very own example, advertising pays for the service. If you don't use products from those advertisers, you don't pay a penny. If you're going to claim that everyone must at some time use those products, then your argument is also wrong - it becomes "everyone pays for the music whether they consume it or not" - a rather different scenario.

Then, you deliberately skipped over the part of the quote that doesn't fit your preconceived assumptions - "Unless a song has an open license". It may be true that most mainstream music is not currently released under such a licence, but you're being dishonest if you pretend that every radio listener is subject to said fee.

Then, of course, you deliberately ignore other ways in which people can legally be exposed to music without paying for it so that you can concentrate on the one that provides the easiest attack.

Why is it that everyone who attacks Mike for being dishonest can't display honesty in their own comments?

Re: Re:

Conversion funnel = Path that someone has to take to actually pay for something, the longer it is, the less likely people actually convert to paying customers of any website.Wikipedia: Conversion funnel

Surely the average is not the most important number? Interesting perhaps, but if more total money is made from people who are file sharers than people who aren't, then they are your consumers, and you should be keeping them happy.